I N T R O D U C T I O N

          To the Christians, the names of the Apostles of Jesus Christ are well known. The Synoptic Gospel writers list them as follows: Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew, Tomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot. In the Catholic teaching, all were proclaimed saints, except Judas Iscariot, who is better known as the traitor or betrayer of his Master. However, the Church has not made any official statement concerning his fate, but, somehow, some Christians have so many seeming odd ideas about him. For some, he is the worst sinner that has ever lived. For others, he is not just a sinner; he is identified as the devil himself, and therefore, should be in hell.
          Could there be any other way of looking at the man Judas Iscariot? How could one assess his role as a betrayer in our history of salvation? Could he have been a different man if Christ did not call him to be an Apostle? Is it possible that, after all, he never deserved the negative image of him as presented in the Holy Writ and other related works? The quest for answers to these and other similar questions gave birth to this work.
          There are two sections. The first part consists of short biographies of prominent Jewish men who had the name Judas. The second part examines the life and activities of Judas Iscariot: his call, his office, his great betrayal of Jesus Christ, and the circumstances surrounding his death. An attempt is made in conclusion to assess his importance in history. Perhaps, outside the traditional and uncritical way of reading the Passion narrative, he may, after all, be a hero.
 
                                                     SECTION ONE:  JUDAS
 
                                                                         A) MEANING OF THE NAME

          The etymological meaning of the Greek word Ίούδας is not known. Without any explanation, Fulton J. Sheen holds that it means “praise”.[1] In English, depending on the context, the Greek word is translated in three ways.
          It may stand for Judah: either as a city or as a son of Jacob. King James’ version of the Bible often translates Ίούδας as Judah (for example, in Mt 1:2-3).
          Ίούδας stands for Jude in some versions of the Bible. Jude here may be the name of Jesus’ Apostle or the title of this Apostle’s Epistle.
          The Greek word Ίούδας is also translated as Judas, a proper name. It is in this sense that the term is used in this work. The name Judas is shared among the Israelites, as will now be shown.
 
                                                                               B) “J U D A S E S”

          It may not be easy to exhaust the list of names of all who answered Judas in Israel. Few are known, perhaps, be so because of their (their known Judases) outstanding role in the socio-political and religious life of the people. Among the known “Judases” are:
 
i) JUDAS MACCABEUS (cf. 1 Maccabees 2 – 9:19)

          He was a Jewish military and political leader, “a mighty warrior from his youth (2:66) and the son of the instigator of the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes. He led the Jews to victory to retain their religion against Antiochus’s orders to worship pagan gods.
          Judas Maccabeus believed that God sent him to be the agent of deliverance for the people. He distinguished himself as a leader in the battle-front. His rallying cry was: “It is better for us to die in battle than to see the misfortunes of our nation and the sanctuary. But as his will in heaven may be, so he will do.” (3:59-60).
          In 3:56, it is noted that Judas was careful in observing the provisions of the law regarding classes exempt from military service. He was exemplary in carrying out all the piety duties, remembering, for example, to send sin offering to Jerusalem which had been defiled.
          At his death in the battle with the army of Bacchides on Mount Azotus, all Israel made great lamentation for him, and they mourned for many days, saying: “How is the mighty fallen, the saviour of Israel” (9:21). He was buried in the tomb of his fathers at Modein (9:19). His victory over the pagan king who tried to suppress Jewish worship of Yahweh is commemorated in the Jewish holiday of HANNUKAH.
          A sober appraisal of him is given in 3:3-9: “He extended the glory of his people, … all the evil-doers were confounded…. He made Jacob glad by his deeds, and his memory is blessed forever”. And further, the author of 1 Maccabees says of him: “The brave deeds that he did, and his greatness, have not been recorded, for they were very many” (9:22). According to J.C. Swaim, Judas Maccabeus “bequeathed to his people a legacy of courage and devotion to the nation”.[2]
 
ii) JUDAS SON OF CALPHI (cf. 1 Maccabees 11:70)

          Jonathan encamped by the waters of Gennesaret with his commanders and army. He went with some of his officers to the plain of Hazor for inspection. They were surrounded by their enemies, who laid an ambush against them in the mountains. All of his officers fled except Mattathias, the son of Absalom and Judas, the son of Calphi, commanders of the army's forces.
 
iii) JUDAS SON OF SIMON (I Maccabees 12-16)

          He was a nephew of Judas Maccabeus. Simon, his father, was elected as the Jewish leader after the imprisonment of Judas Maccabeus’ successor, Jonathan (cf 1 Macc. 12:29-53). His father appointed Judas himself in these words: I have grown old, and you by His (Yahweh’s) mercy are mature in years. Take my place…and go out and fight for our nation”(16:3). In the battle with Cendebus, who invaded Judaea, Judas was wounded, even though the former was defeated. When he was invited to Jericho for a banquet, he, together with Mattathias, his brother and Simon, his father, were treacherously killed by their host, Ptolemy, the son of Abubus (16:11,15-17).
 
iv) JUDAS SON OF JAIRUS

          Josephus[3] mentions his name as the army general who led a band at the siege of Jerusalem. He was killed in the forest of Jared by the army of Bassus.
 
v) JUDAS THE GALILEAN

          His name was mentioned in a council where the fate of the Apostles and their teaching was decided. Gamaliel, a teacher of law and a Pharisee, presented him as an example of a false Messiah who “arose in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered (Acts 5:37).
          Josephus noted that he was a leader of an insurrection against Rome under the procurator Cyrenius (Quirinus) around the beginning of the Christian era. In one of his books, it is read:
a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt and said they were cowards if they would endure paying a tax to the Romans and would, after God, submit to mortal men as their lords.[4]
In another work, Judas was also called a Gaulonite and the author of a Jewish philosophy sect – Zealots.[5]
 
vi) JUDAS THE BROTHER OF JESUS

          He is mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew (13:55) and Gospel of Mark (6:3): “Are not his (Jesus’) brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” It is not the aim of this work to examine whether Judas was indeed Jesus’ brother or whether Jesus has brothers at all, or even in what sense one is to understand the term “brother”. His name is given as Judas. There is no sufficient material to prove that this Judas mentioned could have been the same man as Judas, the son of James who was one of the Twelve[6] since he was not a follower of Jesus during his earthly ministry.
          F.W. Gingrich[7] comments on a tradition concerning the grandson of Judas, which Hegesippus preserve. According to this tradition, the Roman emperor Domitian (AD 81-96) became afraid of a Messianic uprising among the Jews and ordered that the descendants of David be put to death. Some heretics reported two grandsons of Judas, and they were brought into the emperor’s presence. They admitted Davidic descent and explained that Christ’s kingdom was heavenly and angelic, not of this world. When Domitian learned they were small land-owners and saw that they bore evidence of hard work, he dismissed them and brought the persecution to an end. Later they became rulers of Churches.
 
vii) JUDAS OF DAMASCUS

          He was a Christian of Damascus, living along the street called “Straight”, to whose house Saul (later Paul) was taken after the vision of the road, and where he was baptized by Ananias (cf. Acts 9:11).
 
 

                                                               SECTION TWO:  JUDAS ISCARIOT

          He was one of the Twelve Apostles selected and trained by Jesus Christ himself. There have been diverse explanations offered for the name “Iscariot”.
          Henry Wansbrough suggests that it is derived from ‘îš sakarôt – a man-in-charge of payments, a treasurer. This description accords with the Gospel of John.[8] Some[9] hold that the word means “the assassin”(from sikarios); “man from Sychar”(that is, a samaritan); “a man from Jericho”; “carrier of the leather bag” (Scortea); “false one, liar, hypocrite” (Aramaic šqr), etc. It may also have the meaning “man from Issachar” — for the word “Issachar” is interpreted as “gain” to signify the reward of the traitor (cf. Mt. 6:4).
          The most familiar interpretation is “man from Kerioth”. In some reading, apo karyotou is added to John 12:14, 13:2. This addition lends support to the derivation of the name “Iscariot” from the Hebrew ‘is qeriyot — a man from Kerioth. If one holds that the name shows that Judas was from Kerioth, somebody may further ask whether it is Kerioth in Judah (cf. Joshua 15:25) or Kerioth in Moab (cf Jer. 48:24; Amos 2:2)? Whichever one chooses, it reveals something about Judas’ background. If Kerioth in Moab, he was then from a heathen environment, But if Kerioth in Judah, he was a pure Jew. He must then, in either case, have found himself nearly alone in the circle of the Twelve, all of whom (including Jesus) were Galileans. Traditionally, the Jews despised the Galileans because they were not regarded as pure Jews. “Are you from Galilee too? Search, and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee”. (Jn. 7:52). It seems that Judas had scorned public opinion of the South and joined the Northern leader to whom men were gathering from every quarter.
          E.P. Blair advances some arguments[10] against the designation of “Iscariot” as “man from Kerioth”. There is some kind of uncertainty concerning the location of Kerioth. It is uncommon in Greek texts to have untranslated Hebrew word (like ’iš); one questions the reasonableness of having ’iš (Hebrew word) in the text, especially when the popular language was Aramaic. It is, however, entirely plausible to suggest the meaning already advanced from Aramaic root (šqr) – “false one”, “liar”, “hypocrite” – a seeming apt epithet on the lips of Aramaic speaking Christians for the betrayer of Jesus.
          John, the evangelist, gives the name of Judas’ father as Simon Iscariot (Jn 6:71; 13:26). It might be that “Iscariot” was attached to Judas to distinguish him from others of the same common name.

                                                                              A) EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITING

​          The importance of Judas Iscariot to humanity seems to be intimately connected with the story of Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, not surprising that not much is known about his early life. He came into world reputation when he joined the Jesus’ band. All textual references to him are often in connection with his role in the life of Jesus Christ.
          William Shakespeare calls him “a kissing traitor”; “the base Judaean who sold a pearl richer than all his tribe”.[11] By definition, a traitor is “one that swears and lies”.[12]
          From the reconstruction of Henryk Panas, Judas was the son of Simeon bar Zadok, a descendant of high priests of the Temple of Jerusalem who has long settled in Alexandria.[13] He was a nephew of Caiphas of the high priest.[14] No mention is made of Juda’s birth and hometown. He lived at Kerioth with was not far from Hebron. He was a wealthy man who had business interests stretching from Kerioth, Tiberias, Caesarea Paneas (Philippi) to the whole of the Roman Empire. He was cynical and highly educated, having several great teachers: Greek pedagogues (who gave him lectures at Museion), Philo, Scylla and Charybdis.
          Maybe it was at Tiberias, during one of his business trips, that Judas got the inspiration to join the band of Jesus. Here he met a Jewish girl of extraordinary beauty. Her name was Mary (of Magdala) who was born and bred in Tarichaea. She was formerly a woman of low morals but later repented and joined the band of Jesus. Judas got interested in her, and as he was unable to turn her attention from the Rabbi Jesus, he decided to become a member of the circle to win her love one day. He entrusted his business to Zebedee, an old and experienced clerk, and set fort, disguised as a poor man, searching for the band. Another account holds that the Jews persuaded him to become a disciple of Jesus, not to follow his teachings but to betray him. They paid him ä didrachm of gold” daily.[15]
          A closer look at Judas’ period of stay with the band of Jesus reveals two things. On the one hand, there was always a feeling of jealousy by Judas (perhaps, because of Mary Magdalene). On the other hand, there was mistrust by the band (maybe because Judas came uninvited). This feeling grew with time, culminating in Judas’ decision to betray Jesus. In Revillout 5, it is recorded that his wife, like Eve, counselled him to betray his Master.[16]
          After the death of Christ, he went to the underworld (Amente) and drove away death (Abbaton) and his son(Pestilence). When he rose from the dead, he took away all the souls of the dead in Amente, leaving only three: those of Herod, Cain and Judas Iscariot.[17]

                                                               B) NEW TESTAMENT JUDAS ISCARIOT

           The first biblical reference to Judas Iscariot is his election to the apostleship (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16). Matters relating to the time of his call and the manner are not given in the texts. One may suppose that Judas was present at the preaching of John the Baptist at Bethany beyond River Jordan (Jn 1: 28); or that he met Jesus when he was returning through Judaea with some of his followers (Jn 3:22). Perhaps, he was among those called at the Sea of Tiberias (Mt 4:18-22). He was likely called to deny himself like others (Mk 8:34f). Unlike in Matthew’s call (Mt 9:9), there is a kind of veil hanging over Judas’ first meeting with Jesus.
          After Jesus Christ’s night of prayer, he chose the Twelve and included Judas among them, and on each list, he is always the last-named (perhaps, due to his role later in life). Judas must have possessed the qualities required of an Apostle: one who has “accompanied us during the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John….” (Acts 2:21f). Thus he must be one who had seen and heard Christ and shared his companionship. No doubt Judas was given the power like the rest of the Apostles to preach, heal sicknesses, and cast out devils (Mt 3:14-19).
 
i) OFFICE IN THE APOSTOLIC CIRCLE

          Judas Iscariot held a position of trust and confidence as the treasurer. Unlike John, he was not dreamy; and Peter, he was not impulsive but seemed to have possessed correct economic habits, aptitude for finance and love of bargaining.
          He was a treasurer. One may ask: from where did the Apostolic band get the money kept in Judas’ custody? It is to be recalled that he had to perform a miracle to pay tax for Peter and himself (Mt 17:24-17). Did Jesus perform more this type of miracle to raise some fund for the common purse? It is not recorded in the biblical passages. The Apostles wanted Jesus to dismiss the large crowd because they had no sufficient money to feed them (Mk 6:36-38).
          It may, however, be recalled that some wealthy women — Mary Magdalene, Joanna wife of Chuza, Susanna and many other women — contributed to the maintenance of Jesus and his disciples (cf. Lk 8:3). The role of these women should be underlined. If women were so important in Christ’s ministry, why did it become necessary years later for Paul to insist that women should remain only silent participants in liturgical assembly (1 Cor. 14:34)? What exactly should be the role of women in the lives of priests today? Answers to these questions fall outside the scope of this research work.
          Judas was the treasurer and administrator of the fund raised by the aforementioned wealthy women. The very fact that he was given this responsible office proves, at least to a high degree of probability, that the other Apostles had faith in his honesty, and confidence which remained unshaken up to the very night of the betrayal of Jesus. But the degree of faith and trust in him can only be confirmed if the treasurer's office was elective, and all the other Apostles cast their votes for him. Perhaps, Jesus appointed Judas to that office, and one would not rule out the possibility of ill-feelings in the mind of some of the Apostles who might have aspired to that post. This perspective, however, is not recorded in the pages of the Bible.
          Judas carried “the bag” — a secular position requiring a good business tycoon, not necessarily one who is “saintly”. Did Judas nurse hope to become the “governor” of the Central Bank in the New Kingdom about which his Master preached? John reveals that Judas took advantage of his position: his complaint at the ointment waste was motivated by purely selfish interest. He used to help himself from the common purse (Jn 12:4-6).
 
ii) THE GREAT BETRAYAL

          Whenever the Apostles' list is presented in the Bible, Judas Iscariot's name comes last with a tag: “the traitor” or “the betrayer”. It seems that the most important function he performed was the betrayal of his Master. The evangelists were so preoccupied in relating this fact that they neglected to leave for posterity the details of this man's life.
          Some fundamental questions could be posed: What does betrayal mean? Why did Judas “betray” Christ? Was Christ aware that Judas was a “betrayer” before he called him? Why did Christ choose him to be an Apostle? Did Judas really betray his Master? An attempt to answer these questions necessarily requires detailed knowledge of the evangelists’ account of the role of Judas.
          The texts for study are Mk 14:10-46; Mt 26:3-50; Lk 22:3-49; Jn 13:2, 21-30, 18:1-4.
All the Synoptics record Judas’ entry into the conspiracy but do not clearly indicate the time and immediate circumstances. In Matthew and Mark, the chief priests and the elders had already held meetings arranging how to arrest Christ before Judas joined them and voluntarily agreed to assist.
The Chief Priests and the Elders of the people gathered in the palace of the High Priest…and took counsel together to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him…. Then one of the Twelve… Judas Iscariot went…and said, ‘What will you give me if I deliver him to you?’  (Mt 26;3-15).
The exact day of this meeting is not specified. Mark and Matthew write “two days before Passover” (Mk 14:1; Mt 26:2).
          All the Synoptic writers state that Judas and the Chief Priests, together with the Elders, agreed on the betrayal and the price for the job of delivering his Master to them. Mark (14:11) and Luke (22:6) reveal that the Chief Priests and the Elders promised to pay the unspecified amount of money. Only Matthew (26:16) states thirty pieces of silver as the paltry sum of money paid for the infamous assignment. Some authors[18] argue that Matthew borrowed the idea of thirty pieces of silver from Zechariah: “And they weighed out my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the Lord said to me, cast it into the treasury’— the lordly price at which they paid me off” (Zech. 11:12). Reflecting on this sum of money, a poet writes:
Thirty pieces of silver for the Lord of life they gave.
Thirty pieces of silver, only the price of a slave,
      But this was the priestly value of the Holy One of God….
Thirty pieces of silver laid in Iscariot’s hand,
Thirty pieces of silver and aid of an armed band
Thirty pieces of silver burns on the traitor’s brain
Thirty pieces of silver - oh, it is hellish gain…,
Thirty pieces of silver, but oh ‘twas the price of blood…[19]
 
          It was during the Supper that Christ broke the news of his betrayal to his Apostles. All of them were disturbed. They questioned him, in turn, “Is it I, Lord?” Matthew records two forms of address to Christ by his Apostles. It is significant to note that while the other Apostles asked, “Is it I, Lord?” only Judas inquired, “Is it I, Master?” (cf. Mt 26:25,49. “Lord (kurie) is an expression of faith and reverence, while “Master” (rabbei) is a secular expression, often mainly used by Jesus’ opponents.[20]
          In all the Gospels, Christ made the hand dipping a sign of Judas's identification when it was initially merely a Semitic way of expressing table fellowship. John states that Christ dipped a morsel of bread into the wine and then gave it to Judas, who accepted and immediately became possessed by the devil.  This reference to Satanic possession in Jn 13:27 and Lk 22:3 occurred immediately before Judas offered to cooperate in the plot. It is observed that it is the first and only time the word “Satan” is found in John's Gospel, but it is relatively frequent in Luke.[21] Could it be that the Fourth Gospel intentionally took the expression from Luke (or a source in common with Luke) (or a source in common with Luke) and meant to say the very same thing: namely, that Judas’ decision to cooperate in the crime was such a heinous deed that it could only be the immediate work of the Prince of devils himself? One may even question the content of the morsel of bread given to Judas by Christ (cf. Jn 13:26). Perhaps Judas became possessed and forced to attempt the betrayal of Jesus only because he accepted and ate the morsel. But how was it that Jesus who cast out so many devils could abandon one of his Apostles to the adversary? Could it be that Judas was made a scape-goat or victim of the betrayal of his Master? Has this anything to do with his not being a Galilean like the rest? It seems inadequate to accuse Christ of being nepotic or parochial, especially when he had fought so hard for the upliftment of the poor, the down-trodden, the neglected, those persecuted in the cause of justice.
          Even though Christ had given the Apostles the sign of identification of the betrayer, when he finally urged Judas to act quickly, John records that the Apostles were still ignorant of the role of this traitor (13:28). They thought that, as a procurator, he was asked to go out quickly to make purchases for the feast of Passover or send gifts to the poor.[22]
          All the Synoptic writers record that Judas, after the agreement with the chief priests and the elders, sought the opportunity to betray Christ. John explicitly states that Judas was sent out of the supper-room (13:28). It seems that Judas did not know beforehand that he would be sent away from the room. But if his plans required his early departure to alert the conspirators that the “opportunity” for Jesus’ arrest has finally presented itself, then the execution of these plans included an unreasonable and unnecessarily large element of chance.  Did Judas alert the authorities about the nature of his plan just before the Supper?  As it was Jesus’ custom to retire to a definite spot on the Mount of Olives, or precisely the Garden of Gethsemane, after the evening meal (cf. Jn 18:2; Lk 22:39), it would appear that there was no need for Judas to risk himself and the plot by going out before the Supper and returning later to the group once he had entered the conspiracy. One would expect that a smooth execution of the betrayal is more assured if Judas remained with the conspirators to organize the arrest and to hold everything in readiness, instead of having to play the double role of a faithful Apostle and a conspirator at the same time during or after the Last Supper.
          It is simply a matter of guess to state whether Judas was dismissed before, during or after the Supper. John (not to mention all the Synoptic writers) never specified the exact moment Judas was dismissed from the group. Whether he participated fully in the Last Supper by sharing in the Bread and Wine or not is much debated today. One may be led to conclude from Lk 22:14-23 that he partook of the special meal. The other gospels leave the matter very vague. It is, however, to be noted that his participation in the meal will certainly raise some theological concerns. For example, taking this Last Supper to be the Sacrament of the Eucharist, one may inquire to know how disposed one ought to be to participate. If Judas participated in the sacred meal despite his bad conscience, some ask why the Church today insists that those in should not receive the Sacrament. This is another question. E.P Blair writes: “Given the tendency in the tradition concerning Judas to reduce him to the status of a devil, Luke’s more theologically difficult and less tendentious account of the Supper may contain historical fact. If Judas participated in this holy Sacrament, his subsequent deed appears the more reprehensible.[23]
          What information did Judas deliver to the religious authorities? The evangelists remain vague. Perhaps he announced to them that Jesu had accepted to be anointed at Bethany and, therefore, openly claimed messiahship (cf. Mk 14:3-11). It may be that he went to reveal the nocturnal hide-out of Jesus where he could be apprehended quietly without exciting his many sympathizers and supporters. This latter proposition seems more tenable, especially when it is realized that the need for betrayal arose from the fact that the popularity of Jesus would not permit a public arrest (cf. Mt 26:4). However, one thing is sure: Judas offered some helpful information on how to arrest Jesus, as subsequent events showed.
          What does it mean then “to betray”? According to a dictionary,[24] it means  “to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery”, “to disappoint the hopes or expectations,” and “to give away or sell treacherously”, “to reveal or disclose some secret in violation of confidence”. All these nuances involve either giving information or handing over one to a supposed enemy or both actions as a complex whole.
          According to the Gospel texts, Judas consulted the Jewish religious authorities and handed over Christ to them. How did he do the latter? In all the Gospels, he led the group that arrested Jesus. He gave them a critical sign of identification: the kiss. Unlike Luke, the other Synoptic writers retain the purpose of the kiss: “The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him and lead him away under guard. (Mk 14:44).
          In Luke, the presence of the temple guard gives the action a more official character. And accordingly, for Luke, an author writes, “the kiss of Judas has ceased to be a sign of identification and remains only a gesture of perfidy”.[25] It is to be note that when Judas said, “the one I shall kiss” (Mk 10:44, Mt 26:48), the Greek word phileso was used. This word is an ordinary one used as a sign of respect, a customary greeting to a Rabbi. But when it is said that Judas came forward and kissed Jesus, the word used was katephilesen. Kata  is intensive, and katephilesen means “to kiss as lover kisses a beloved one”.[26] Mark and Matthew, perhaps, want to increase Judas’ guilt in the betrayal. Luke relates that he was approaching to kiss (phileso) before Jesus questioned: “Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?” (22:48).
          Did Christ need to be identified since every person knew him? He preached and did works of wonder which made his name ring bell in the streets of Judah. The events preceding the arrest of Jesus showed that he was initially lauded and welcomed as the Messiah by throngs of pilgrims on his arrival in Jerusalem (Mt 21:1-11). Then, he proceeded to create a considerable commotion in the temple by driving out the stall-keepers and money changers (Mt 21:12-16). Yet, at the end of all these, he became such an unknown person to the leaders of the people that there was the need to identify him by a kiss. It does not seem to be logically coherent. Henryk Panas, interpreting what should be Judas’ assessment of the evangelists, branded them “unsuccessful hagiographers” who “are complete ignoramuses where logical thinking is concerned”.[27]
          Why was Christ betrayed by a kiss instead of the usual way by pointing a finger? If Jesus had set every person packing in the manner recorded in the Bible (cf. Mt 21:12-16), the temple guards would have arrested him at once without waiting for specific orders since it was a threat to public order. There would then have been no need for the dark of night, nor Judas Iscariot, nor the kiss. But Christ was not arrested, or the evangelists did not tell us. Was identification then necessary? An opinion holds that at the time of the festival, there were large numbers of people staying around the Mount of Olives so that in the dark of the night, a unique signal was needed to enable the Jewish militia to distinguish their man.[28]
          Why did Judas betray Christ? The motives behind Judas’ action are unascertainable. The betrayal accounts are so obscure and so obviously slanted that some scholars have doubted the historicity of the betrayal. But it seems very unlikely that the early Christians would have invented a story so infamous and derogatory to one of the Church's foundations – the Apostles. The crescendo of the hostility towards Judas grew over time. It came to the point that his name was so blackened that the fourth Gospel practically identifies him with Satan and even anti-Christ (cf. Jn 6:70, 17:12).
          Since the evangelists fail to give the reasons behind Judas’ action, only guesses can be made. Did Judas look in common with the other eleven for the founding of an earthly kingdom?[29] Perhaps, he was disappointed when he realized that he would not find an earthly kingdom, and the following of him carried no worldly prospects with it. John (13:2) relates that Satan entered into him. It may be asked: when did Satan enter into him? Was he possessed from the beginning? Perhaps, the fact that he was not a Galilean like the rest in the circle may have led to a certain want of sympathy between him and Jesus. Mary Simeon suggests that it may be that Judas only wanted to precipitate a crisis, and he thought that the arrest would provoke a rising and that he would be set free and enthroned, and he did not foresee that his action would lead to death.[30]
          Maybe that Judas’ enthusiasm began to wane because Jesus filed to strike decisively at his enemies and those of the nation. He might have lost patience with Jesus’ indifference to many points of the law and his association with the “wrong” people — tax collectors and sinners, for example. Perhaps, he felt disappointed that Jess failed to manifest his power in Jerusalem after he had doggedly journeyed there for a show-down appearance. It may be that Judas never really believed in Christ: instead of “Lord”, he addressed him as “Rabbi”, like those who often opposed him. Perhaps, in his own eyes, Jesus was a false Messiah, a deceiver of the people, who, according to the law (Deut. 13:1-11), should be done away with.
          It may be that Judas thought that by his betrayal, he would force Jesus into a display of power so that the Jewish religious and political authorities would once and for all be convinced of his messiahship. Of course, as the Messiah, Jesus was in the position to command a legion of angels to come and deliver him from his enemies. It may be that Judas wanted to deceive the people and raise their hope of capturing a man who would miraculously escape. Was Judas then simply greedy and dishonest, a man who could not resist an opportunity for personal gain, as some evangelists (cf. Mt. 26:14-16; Jn 12:4-6) presented him? But thirty pieces of silver is too meagre for such a heinous crime! E.P. Blair concludes: “Nothing short of disillusionment over Jesus, from whom he had hoped so much, and a corresponding zeal to uphold the law and institutions of Judaism against the attacks of false prophets and messiahs would see to explain a deed so radical.”[31]
          Was Christ then aware that Judas was a betrayer? From his utterances, it would seem he was conscious of the presence of a traitor among the Twelve. In the discourse on the bread of life, he remarked: “But there are some of you that do not believe”. And John comments: “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those that did not believe and who it was that would betray him.” (Jn 6:64). At the end of the discourse, Jesus, in answer to Peter’s question, added, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve, and one of you is a devil?” John again adds a footnote: “He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was to betray him.” (Jn 6:71).  On the way to Jerusalem, Christ said: “Behold, we are going to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes…” {Mk 10:33). In the feet-washing episode with its lesson of humility (Jn 13:1-20), Jesus made premonitory allusions to the fact that a traitor was among the Twelve, hinting that they were not all clean, insinuating thereby that one of them knew he would betray him but would not repent. When Jesus finished explaining the service of love, he immediately proceeded to the unwelcome task of announcing his betrayal.
          It may then, from the foregone, be established that Jesus was aware of the presence of a traitor among the Twelve. The evangelists identified him as Judas Iscariot.
          Why did Christ choose him? If he is God, and if he is omniscient, how could he choose an instrument that would eventually put him out of bodily existence? Did he think that Judas was a different man from what he turned out to be? Was he not aware of his character, or was he deceived as the rest of the Apostles seemed to be?
          A.B. Bruce suggests that Judas Iscariot “was chosen merely to be a traitor, as an actor might be chosen to play the part of Iago”.[32] To accept this opinion will lead to many consequences. In the least, it may raise the problem of predestination and responsibility. Were unrepentant sinners created to remain impenitent and, therefore, meant for eternal damnation? Is there any personal contribution to an individual’s salvation? If Judas was predestined to betray Christ, is there any justification for Christ’s curse: “…alas for that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Better for that man if he had never been born.” (Mk 14:21)? To affirm that Jesus chose Judas to be a traitor is to make him (Jesus) responsible for his own betrayal — an act that would exonerate Judas from all blame.
          To a religious person of straightforward orientation, he chose Judas because it was his sovereign will. “Whatsoever the Lord wills, he does in heaven and on earth.” (Ps. 135:6).
          Perhaps, Christ wanted to teach that by choosing Judas, an association between the ungodly and one who knew no sin is possible. This is consistent with Jesus’ attitude towards people during his earthly life when he associated freely with tax-collectors and sinners. Indeed, “the son of man came to seek the sinners” (Lk 19:10). It is possible that over and above his evil tendencies, Christ saw other finer qualities which might under his (Christ’s) tutelage be overcome.
          It may be assumed that Jesus chose Judas because he saw possibilities of nobility and great usefulness in him. In the beginning, Judas must have responded with enthusiasm to Jesus and his proclamation. If Judas's character were conspicuously defective on the sympathetic side, this would explain the reserve that marked his conduct with Jesus. When Judas joined Christ, an authorholds that it was more as a patriot or political leader than as a personal friend, and his mind interpreted his (Christ’s) words and deeds through the medium of his anticipation. One would then be inclined to hold that at the time of his choice to follow Jesus. Judas was no conscious or deliberate hypocrite. The zeal and enthusiasm he displayed were no play; he was sincere in his initial discipleship, having an honest desire to follow him. It is to be presumed that there was a genuine feeling of intimacy and friendship between Jesus, other Apostles and Judas. Who knows if Christ and Judas have felt true sorrow in being implicated in the betrayal? On Christ’s part, the following lines may have expressed his mind: “Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.” (Ps. 41:9). On Judas's part, he felt such remorse of conscience that he rejected the bribe offered to him and went ahead to commit suicide. Could this be a supreme way of repenting according to the Jewish or any contemporary tradition?
 
iii) DEATH OF JUDAS ISCARIOT.
​
          Judas’ end is shrouded in the same obscurity as the events leading up to it. In Matthew’s account, when Judas saw that Jesus was condemned to death, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the elders, saying: “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” (27:4). The chief priests and elders felt that it was not lawful to put the money into the temple coffer because it was “blood money”. Instead, they used it to buy “porter’s field” for burying strangers. The field was called “Field of Blood” in fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah. All the other Gospel writers recorded nothing about Judas’ end. Luke, however, in Acts of the Apostles, writes at length on the fate of Judas:
          Peter…said: ‘Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke…concerning Judas…. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all the bowels gushed out….). Acts 1:15-19)
          Each of the accounts (Matthew and Luke) seems to rest on a popular tradition which the authors put down in writing according to personal idiosyncrasies. However, at the basis of each account is the conviction that Judas’ death fulfilled the Scriptures. Two different translations of Zechariah 11:12 influence Matthew’s version: the Old Testament version (which is not relevant in the context) and its Masoretic reading, which Matthew quoted: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom some of the sons of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” (Mt 27:9-10). But the porter’s field seems to be a confused reminiscence of Jeremiah 32:6-15 (purchase of the area in Anathoth) and Jeremiah 18 and 19 (parable of the potter), from where Matthew attributes the quotation to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. The strained nature of this reminiscence and the firm traditional localization of Akeldama (Aramaic word for “Field of Blood”) in the potter’s land in Jerusalem suggest that the community in Jerusalem knew that Judas was buried there, and they were seeking to interpret this fact. Perhaps, it was the piece of land in Jerusalem where refuse was commonly thrown (cf. II Kings 23:6,13-14), whose perpetually burning fires and odours of decay suggested the fires of Hell or Gehenna.[33]      E.P. Blair notes that tradition has located this field at the Kidron, Tyopoeon and Hinnon valleys' confluence.[34]
          The mode of Judas’ suicide recalls that of Ahithophel (II Sam. 17:23) who betrayed his Master David, like Judas the Messiah Christ; that of Antiochus Epiphanes (II Macc. 9:7-18), or at least, by loose tradition, that concerning the way traitors and villains should die.
          Acts 1:18 has another tradition different from Matthew’s account concerning the end of Judas. The purchase of the field which in Mt. 27:7 was made by the priests is attributed in Acts of the Apostles to Judas himself, and his death by a fall with no hint that it was suicide. This passage probably echoes the fate of the wicked in the book of Wisdom:
…because he will dash them speechless to the ground and shake them from the foundations; they will be left utterly dry and barren, and they will suffer anguish, and the memory of them will perish.
          Max Wilcox[35] observes that the story of Judas’ death in Acts of the Apostles presents several problems. A close look at the text reveals that the account of the death seems to interrupt the flow of Peter’s speech. The phrase: “the field was called in their language…(Acts 1:19a) is awkward in its context. Surely Aramaic was Peter’s own language. He should have said “in our language”. And in Acts 1:16a, it is difficult to determine which precise passage of Scriptures was seen as “having been fulfilled”. The significance of the phrase “it was necessary” (in 1:16 and 1:21) is not clear. Perhaps, the issue here is the defection or demise of Judas, or it is selecting his successor. It is equally unclear why so much care was taken in the replacement of Judas when no such step is recorded after the martyrdom of James, the son of Zebedee in Acts 12:2. This last problem becomes all the more puzzling if one maintains that Luke represents “the Twelve” as a closed unit throughout Acts of the Apostles.
 
                                                  C) JUDAS ISCARIOT AND CHRISTIANS TODAY

          Judas remains the best known of all the Apostles in the Bible, perhaps, because of his infamy. Even Peter who was the leader of all the Apostles, apart from the reference to his mother-in-law (Lk 4:38), his impulsive utterances and actions (cf. Lk 22;33; Jn 18:10) and his Epistle,[36] nothing more is known about his life and circumstances surrounding his death on the pages of the Bible. All through history, whenever the story of Christ is told, it is never complete without the part played by Judas Iscariot in the drama. The name is on the lips of everyone. A common expression, “in every twelve there must be Judas,” is often used to show how imperfect any group is and could be.
          The betrayal of Judas has been regarded by many as the foulest deed that was ever committed. Some artists may have described him as a subject for the delineation of the most hellish passions, and some poets may have been conjured up all the horrors of the imagination to represent his fierce malignity and hideous ingratitude. Some children who had the story read to them may have shuddered at the thought of his crime. Perhaps because of the feeling of abhorrence of his crime, his name has become a by-word for betrayal and treachery, and no father would like to give his son the name Judas. Shakespeare asks: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by another name would smell sweet….[37] When understood in this sense, a name is no more than what William of Ockham calls flatus vocis; or a mere identification mark, a label that does not explain a thing's content.
          To a Christian, however, a name is more than a mere tag. At Baptism, a Christian takes the name of a person recorded as having lived well on earth and is, perhaps, now in heaven. He wants to be associated with this good person; he may sometimes solicit their protection from dangers.
          Nearer home, for Igbo Christian, the meaning attached to a name is even more profound. In addition to the significance mentioned above, a name carries with it the history of the person or the family bearing it. For example, Chukwudiebele may be given to a child as an exclamation in acknowledging an unexpected gift; or in appreciation of God's favour to a family during a difficult moment in the past. There seems to be a kind of intimate connection between one’s name and one’s personality. Thus, one may suppose that the rejection of Judas Iscariot's name and all it stands for is not unconnected with the ugly stories surrounding his name. The widespread hatred for him is sometimes strangely expressed. In Corfu, the people on Easter eve throw down quantities of crockery into the streets, thus executing an imaginary stoning of the traitor.[38] Charles Stanford writes: “Of all the spectres that have ever haunted the poet in his imagination, or the sacred sleeper in his dreams, or iced the blood of a seer, there has surely been none like the awful ghost of Judas.”[39]
          Often, Christians do not seem to bother about the fate of Judas. Taking the statement[40] made by Jesus as referring to Judas, many conclude that he is in hell. This feeling is very much encouraged when some texts of the Gospel hold that Judas committed suicide (a serious kind of sin).
          IS JUDAS A SAINT?  Any answer to this question requires some understanding of who a saint is. According to E. Isichei, the word “saint” means different things in different contexts. She distinguished three kinds of saints: those officially canonized (a process that requires the support of a strong pressure group and ample financial resources); those who are regarded by those around them as outstandingly holy and close to God, thus “saints by acclamation”. The third meaning of the word refers to the whole community of the blessed, but, except in the case of the canonized, there is no way of knowing who these are.[41] Certainly, Judas Iscariot is not a saint by canonization or by acclamation. Is he then one of the “anonymous” saints? At the beginning of Christ’s life, Simeon remarked: “This child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel….” (Lk 2:34). Could it be that Jesus was for Judas a stumbling block, the cause of his downfall? In the course of his life, Christ said that he came for sinners (Lk 19:10). On the Cross, at the end of his earthly life, he said: Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34). Was Judas not included among those granted this unconditional pardon? No conclusive answer can be given. He is God of justice; he is also God of mercy. The fate of everyone, including Judas, is in his hands.
 
                                                     C O N C L U S I O N

          At this point, one may attempt to assess the importance of Judas Iscariot in history. A question may be posed: Without Judas Iscariot, how would our[42] history have been written? Perhaps, terms need to be clarified. What is our history of salvation? Answer to this question may lead one to read through the gamut of man’s experience of God in the pages of the Bible. Only a sketch can be given here.
          With all the anthropomorphic presentation of the story, the author(s) of the Book of Genesis asserts that God created man in His own image and likeness. Man lost this pride of place through his sin (Gen. 3:1-24). But God, in His mercy, did not leave man to his fate; a redeemer was promised (Gen. 3:15). The Book of Exodus and the other books of the Pentateuch relate that God entered into covenant with me (Israel stood for the rest).[43] When man strayed from this intimate relationship, God did not abandon him to the power of death but helped all men to seek and find him. Through the prophets, He taught them to hope for salvation and, in the “fullness of time”, He sent His only Son, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.[44] Many theologians agree that “the fullness of time” includes the supreme moment when man’s redemption is said to be satisfactorily accomplished. The period begins at the time of Incarnation, stretching through the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ (the apex of the event) to the moment of eschatology.
It was the climax of the “fullness of time” when man’s redemption was supremely achieved that Judas Iscariot emerged in history. Hypothetically, it could have been any other man, but the lot fell on Judas Iscariot. He appeared to solve the problem for the Jewish authorities who could not arrest Jesus publicly. He may be accused of any sin, but it does not seem likely that without him, the Passion's story would have been smooth since the Scriptures must be fulfilled. Perhaps, there would have been civil strife or religious riot if Christ was arrested when his sympathizers were around. Possibly, the authorities would not have discovered Jesus’ place of prayer in the night; and even if they could have found it, it would have been difficult to identify him.
There may have been alternative ways of accomplishing man’s redemption since God is omnipotent, but; it seems that without Judas Iscariot, the events of Christ’s redemptive work would have, perhaps, contained many unnatural elements. Perhaps, Christ would have simply disappeared, leaving the Apostles to convince the whole world that he had saved them all. Maybe Jesus would have ended up being only a preacher like Mohammed. Probably the events of the climax of the fullness of time could have come like a mighty wind as on the Pentecost day (Acts 2:2) or in the form of earthquake or fire or still small voice (cf. I Kgs 19:12).
          Possibly, without Judas Iscariot, there would have been no passion and death, and therefore, no Cross and no resurrection, as we have these events. It may be insurmountably difficult to explain man’s redemption without the symbolic shedding of blood on the Cross, which followed the handover of Christ to the Jews. Blood itself is life. It purifies and protects. To shed blood is to take life away, and it is avenged by the shedding of blood (Gen. 9:6). In the Old Testament sacrificial ritual of sin and guilt offerings, blood is symbolically presented to God, who is represented by the altar. It is sprinkled before the sanctuary (Lev. 4:6) or poured at the base of the altar (Lev. 4:7), or smeared at the horns of the altar (Lev. 4:25). The Passover lamb's blood smeared on the door-posts protected the Israelites from the angel of death in Egypt (Ex 12:7,13).
          In the New Testament, blood is regarded (as in the Old Testament) as a sacrificial atoning agent. This is made explicit in the Epistles. In Romans 3:25 and 5:9, Christ is a propitiatory offering in his blood through which we are made righteous. By his blood, we are redeemed (Eph. 1:7) and are enabled to draw near to God (Eph.2:13). Through the shedding of his blood, he has made peace between God and man (Col. 1:20). The Letter to the Hebrews contrasts and draws an analogy between the Old Testament concept of the shedding of animals' blood and Christ's in the New Testament. Christ’s blood is not only superior to that of animals but is over and above all the effective agent of purification and remission of sins (Heb 9:20,22). In his blood, the elect have washed their robes (Rev. 7:14). As it stands now in the Bible, Judas Iscariot, in a unique way, made it possible for Christ’s shedding of blood which washed away the sins of men.
          There may have been other sides of “the Judas’ story”. Many who condemn him may not have put themselves outside the traditional and uncritical way of reading the Passion narrative. If it were in the divine plan for man’s redemption that a betrayer's role was necessary, one would not fail to see Judas as a hero.  
It is, however, to be remarked that even though the betrayal of Jesus by Judas may have been part of the mystery of our history of salvation, it itself, the act is reprehensible. Betrayal is an abuse of trust; it is infidelity.
Man is a being existing in relation to himself (his faculties) and others. He is a social being. To be in a cordial relationship with others presupposes some amount of confidence and trust in others. For example, there should be that belief that water assuages thirst, food nourishes; that our cooks will not poison us; that teachers do not intend to mislead his pupils; that our friends do not intend any harm. Without this amount of trust, this world will simply be hellish.
          From the point of view of the seeming absence of trust, Judas's act may be seen as grievous. He seemed to have betrayed a trust that Christ supposedly had when he chose him as a close friend (Apostle). It may not be easy to determine why God allowed betrayal, an act which man reprimands, as a means to achieve a happy end for his creatures. Perhaps it is one of those mysteries which God wishes to reveal to mere babes. After all, it is said that God can write straight on crooked lines.


[1] Life of Christ, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958), 287.

[2] Judas Maccabeus” in TIDB 2(E-J), New York, Abingdom, 1962, 1009.

[3] Cf. “Wars of the Jews” in The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, translated by William Whiston, (Toronto, The John C. Winston Co., 1957), 845.

[4] Ibis., 673.

[5] “Antiquities of the Jews”Book XVIII in Opus cit., 530.

[6] Cf. Luke6:16, Acts 1:13 NS John 14:22)

[7] “Judas”in TIDB, 1006.

[8] “St Mark: Appointment of the twelve” in ANCC, n.751d (London, T. Nelson, 1975), 961.

[9] For example, E.P. Blair: “Judas Iscariot” in TIDB, 1006.

[10] Opus cit.

[11] Love’s Labour’s Lost, Act 5, Scene II.

[12] Macbeth, Act 4, Scene II.

[13] The Gospel According to Judas, translated by M.E Heine (London: Hutchinson, 1977) Book I.

[14] “Story of Joseph of Arimathea”in TANT, translated by Montagus R. James (Oxford, Clarendon, 1960), 161.

[15] Ibid., 162.

[16] “Coptic Narratives of the Ministry and the Passion” in TANT, 149.

[17] “The Book of the Resurrection of Christ” by Bartholomew the Apostle, in TANT, 183.

[18] For example, J.L. Mckenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, (London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1965), 463.

[19] W. Blane in LOCKYER, H., All the Apostles of the Bible, (Michigan, Zondervan, 1972), 112.

[20] For example, he Pharisees: cf. Mt 22:16; 22:36; the Sadducees: cf Mt 22:24.

[21] CATCHOLE D.R., “Judas Iscariot: Key to the Last Supper narratives”. In NTS Vol17, edited by M. Black. (Cambridge, University Press, 1971), 229.

[22] A pious custom in Jerusalem during the time of Passover.

[23] Opus cit., 1007.

[24] HANKS, P., (ed.), Hamlyn Encyclopedic World Dictionary (London: Hamlyn, 1971), 178.

[25] VAWTER B., This Man Jesus (New York, Image, 1975), 71.

[26] BARCLAY W. The Daily Study Bible: the Gospel of Mark, (Edinburgh, St Andrew

[27] Opus cit., 134.

[28] Henry Wansbrough, “St Mark: Gethsemane – the Arrest” in Opus cit., n 761r, 980.

[29] Cf. Acts 1:16: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

[30] Personalities in the Gospel story, (Milwaukee, The Bruce, 1963), 113.

[31] Opus cit., 1007.

[32] The Training of the Twelve, (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1898), 21.

[33] Cf. Enoch 26-27, a corruption of its name Ge’Hinnon. Henry Wansbrough, “St Matthew: Death of Judas” in ANCC, 741b, p.951.

[34] Opus cit., 1007.

[35] Cf. “Judas-Tradition in Acts 1:15-26” in NTS Vol. 9, pp. 438 & 439.

[36] Perhaps, he may not have written the Epistle himself. It is common for a disciple or any other person to write a work and attribute it to a well-known figure, to give it some shade of orthodoxy or authority.

[37] “Romeo and Juliet, Acts, Scene II, line 43.

[38] W.A.L. “Judas Iscariot” in Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 13 (London, 1956), 168.

[39] in LOCKYER H., Opus cit. 102.

[40] “,,,alas for that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Better for that man if he had never been born,” (Mk 14:21)

[41] ISICHEI E., Entirely for God: the life of Father Michael Iwene Tansi, (Ibadan, Macmillan, 1973) ix.

[42] For us Christians.

[43] “I will take you for my people and I will be your God.”(Ex. 6:7).

[44] Cf, Eucharistic Prayer IV.